Curse

CyberNigma · Jan 07, 2006, 09:26 PM // 21:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manic Smile

Yep...old school D and D here and I agree I enjoyed solo table top, Torment, BG, BG2, and the Fallout series (special not D&D) but all "single player" games. In a MMO the forcus is interaction...soloing is fine I do it...but when soloing is a detrement AS SEEN BY A.net if mho isn't enough then it should be "nerfed"...else why be multiplayer. Perhaps I got a bit overzelous but the truth still is no one can claim solo farming isn't having a large impact on GW society...be it good or bad iyo. Just look at all the posts on it.

Well (being the computer nerd and seeing as how computer nerds are usually nitpickers and/or word lawyer), those are single player adventures in a multi-player game for the most part. The fallout series' rocks (yes single-player). I like Wasteland as well :-) (off-topic but still a response :-)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xenrth

About the 50 dollars thing/you bought the game, that's a common misunderstanding with games/software in general. The reality is you don't. All you pay for is the priviledge of playing their game. In essence you are paying Anet/NCSoft so that they give you permission to play their game. In the world of the EULA, you effectively have no ownership, and no automatic right to play the game or anything at all. All control and power is with the developer/publisher etc. Take it from someone who's worked in the software industry, they could decide tomorrow to turn off the servers and stop people playing (and it would be perfectly legal, all in the rules).

I knew I should've worded that statement differently (apply the above computer nerd nitpicking/word lawyering that I just myself used :-). Yeah I'm in the software industry myself (engineer/programmer - fill both jobs depending upon situation). Coming from another industry previously (military/non-computer related) I try to simplify things sometimes. I didn't mean that we have any "real" ownership in the game or anything property-wise (except the fact that we own the physical components that we bought aka book/box/cd/etc), but that we have an 'interested that we have invested in', kinda like time spent on our character (we hava an interested we've spent time on in that character even though we don't own the IP). Ultimately, EULAs are only so good as long as a court doesn't say otherwise. They are not law, they are a supposed contact, and even so a contract can be overturned by a court if its seen as having been taken (or given) in bad faith. In your example, if a company created an online game, sold a million copies, then stopped it, you would have to be a really naive person to believe that a class action, or even a single-party suit would not be successful against said company even with the EULA. Judges and juries are people, and are not black and white (even though their skin may be). That's called bad faith in business, where we reasonably expect to play a little bit out of it (even though its not specifically stated). That's not just related to our industry.

Anyways, back to my statement, considering our vested interest in the game (spending money), we have no legal right to complain, but we DO have a "consumer right" in that we paid for (the use of) it and reasonably expect the producer to respect the fact that we have opinions on the product (not to necessarily respect the opinions all the time, of course :-). While we can't sue (or should'nt if we don't like it and it hasn't been changed into a completely different product), the power of a customer (monopolies withstanding) is to be able to shutdown a producer, especially if that producer needs current customers to re-invest in order to stay in business.

Having said that, I believe that ANet/Gaile listens very well (sometimes maybe too well lol). The original comment was aimed at those who like to answer for ANet (if you don't like it, go to WoW, or something like that). Let ANet answer that subject. I'm quite sure they don't wanted jaded players to go to WoW, but would rather try to find some middle-ground, hence our vested interest (paying for the ability to play their game, possibly paying again in the future) is probably reckognized and regardled highly by ANet. After all, chances are they aren't reading WoW message boards to see how people complain about GW (people with possibly no vested interested) and making corrections based upon that..

I run into this problem all the time in fact, so don't feel singled out :-) Quite a few people I know are in my industry and you have to be on your toes and not simplify for fear of a prolonged 'technically/word definition' argument. I group up and worked around quite a bit of blue-collars and we would use words in their general meaning, not webster-meaning, like calling any soda a coke :-) I do it myself. Btw, if a company or representative tells you in the future the EULA says such-and-such and you have no right to such-and-such, well... that's their job. It is to their benefit that you believe them so that there is not even the remote possibility that they are proven wrong. I refuse arbitration clauses when I buy a new vehicle, not because I think they can't be negated (my state has a lemon law which will negate it in many cicumstances, even though it's a contract), but because I can. They always cave in when they see a sale going away :-)

CyberNigma · Jan 07, 2006, 09:42 PM // 21:42

One thing I forgot, in regards to the vested interest comment. You have to consider that many online games are international, and even those that aren't are still bounded by their nation's trade agreements. There have been a few cases recently concerning 'virtual property'. I am not sure if there are any in the US, but its possible there are. I recall one in China, concerning a man that successfully sued a game company to give his stolen 'virtual property' back. I believe there was one a bit back in Japan, though I can't remember the details. Maybe it was the one relating to the sword and the murder. Anyways, it could happen elsewhere (since China isn't officially being served by the game we play, though Japan soon will be).

Manic, you shot off some good old school shiznit (the DnD/Fallout stuff - so I'm not misunderstood lol) :-) I got to wondering what kind of player you are in the game. You seem like you'd fall in with some of the people I play with, but your comments are throwing me off a bit. It seems you are more or less tired of the whiners across the board (legit and non-legit) and posting responses appropriately as opposed to really being opposed to some of these things. It's true we don't really role-play like we do in DnD (my group of buddies online). We do however talk about our characters in 3rd person like they are people and/or pets :-) I'll have to look you up sometime in-game. And YES, I do collect stuff just for the skins now lol.

Xenrath · Jan 07, 2006, 09:47 PM // 21:47

Yeah true, my example was a bit on the extreme side (mainly just for emphasis) and personally I don't really like how a lot of EULA's are set out, effectively letting companies get away with murder (more or less) since few individuals actually do anything about it e.g. lawsuits etc. Anyway it was just a side note, not really on topic

CyberNigma · Jan 07, 2006, 09:56 PM // 21:56

oops, my bad. I looked at your message and replied wrongly. Those are indeed just single-player games (I mistook them for the lettering of older dnd modules). I meant solo 'DnD' games, not computer games (aka: Blizzard Pass, Maze of the Riddling Minotaur, Ghost of Lion Castle, etc etc), pen and paper DnD roleplaying solo adventures. Although many will argue that those adventures are for players who wanted to play when they couldn't get a group together (which could apply to GW), some of us played them because they wanted to concentrate solely on our own character (kind of like reading an interactive book, I guess). With GW costing the same as a single-player game, but being able to be played as either, there's not much reason to treat it as either one of the other, but both really. I can understand the argument (buy a single-player game) with WoW, because you are effectively paying 15 dollars a month (guess) to play by yourself. In our case, we pay 50 dollars for either Guild Wars or Dungeon Siege 2, so why not get the one with the extra features (city/lobbies) :-)

Manic Smile · Jan 08, 2006, 12:34 AM // 00:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by CyberNigma

Well (being the computer nerd and seeing as how computer nerds are usually nitpickers and/or word lawyer), those are single player adventures in a multi-player game for the most part. The fallout series' rocks (yes single-player). I like Wasteland as well :-) (off-topic but still a response :-)

You can have party members in solo d and d adventures...granted not controled by you...so maybe more like the NWN Pirates or Arcanium...